Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so safety needs no restating. The description adds the hint that the response includes 'measured counts', which is mild but real behavioral context beyond the annotations; it says nothing about lookup failure behavior when a question_id is out of range.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single tight sentence with the important scope qualifier ('one') front-loaded. It is efficient though slightly thin rather than padded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a two-parameter lookup with no output schema, zero parameter documentation, and no explanation of the counts returned, the description is under-specified. An agent cannot infer the question_id domain or what the counts measure without trial and error.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% for both parameters, so the description must carry the load and it does not. It never explains what a run_id scopes to or why question_id is bounded 1-35 (presumably a fixed question bank), leaving the agent to guess.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (inspect) and resource (one buyer question) with an explicit single-item scope, which separates it from list/search siblings. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings like get_method or get_results beyond the resource noun.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this single-question lookup versus search_answers, get_results, or the other get_* siblings. The description assumes the agent already knows the discovery workflow and prerequisites (e.g., that a run_id must be obtained first).

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.